Since it seems pointless to deal with comments such as Billy’s (ah, yes, everything is about Rove & if not that elections – what a small prism through which to view the world), I wandered through other blogs. And found a certain kind of pleasure in two of the best: Iowahawk discovers a letter and Lileks writes a screed. As usual, both are witty & incisive. Thanks.
2 thoughts on “Keller Provides Fodder”
Comments are closed.
Ginny,of the seven comments I put down, you allude only to one and fail to express why the Rovian world view is false. Indeed, his responsibility is to maintain the Republican majority so that Mr. Bush will not become a lame duck. Rush Limbaugh and his purple pills are funny. What Mr. Bush and the Republican Senate and House memebers are “performing” is not funny. Perhaps your masthead is a good reminder: “If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” – George Orwell
Well, it is less that I don’t like to hear that Rove is behind the general irritation with Keller’s definition of his role than that your argument is silly. Is your point that without Rove there would be no criticism of Keller? Or without Rove Keller wouldn’t have made the choice he did, because he, too, is Rove’s puppet? Is your point that complaints have arisen to emotionally stir an unthinking electorate rather than because some (perhaps mistaken in your estimation) find the choice reprehensible.
Bush has not been a terribly accessible president, but boycotting hardly describes the regular newsbriefings.
The fact that any sentient person figured the government was tracking down movements of money to terrorists (as desired by the 9/11 commission, the New York Times and probably, again, any sentient person in the US) is not the same as the details of a program that are more easily eluded when known.
What you might think about is how you are dealing with the Keller story. Are you listening to what you don’t want to hear – or are you merely repeating to yourself that critics have no important points and that Rowe & George Bush are responsible for, well, for the story – and it is a “story”, not an incident, fact, a reality. If you see the world through such a narrow prism, all is interpreted in terms of politics: Rove is a master manipulator, terrorism is only a ploy for election year gain (which also leads, of course, to the belief that no strategy is necessarily kept secret, that anyone’s position pre-9/11 on anything that can be swept into the general grouping of “terrorism” should be held against any current positions, etc. etc.).
Yes, I would prefer not to hear your arguments, but that is because they lead us down roads that are unprofitable and not likely to challenge my beliefs but rather to lead to fruitless discussion of your obsessions.